Crazy idea. Hit Yee where it matters?

[Code7inOaktown]

Yee will be termed out but that just means he will be running for another office. Could we fund opposition to his LEFT flank? Anywhere he runs he is unlikely to face serious opposition on his right. If we fund those on his left flank it could force him to the left which could hurt him in a seat for a larger district.

Please no anti-asian crap here as I am Chinese American and would like see his anti gun butt unemployed.

Just looking for some political pay back.

[Tincon]

That is exactly what a pro gun PAC in this state should be doing IMO.

[taperxz]

Whats wrong? You don't Yee to be Secretary of State and in charge on elections and corporations in this state?

[chainsaw]

... Could we fund opposition to his LEFT flank? Anywhere he runs he is unlikely to face serious opposition on his right. If we fund those on his left flank it could force him to the left which could hurt him in a seat for a larger district.

You and what army?

Senator Yee will be running for Secretary of State. That's a statewide position. You can assume that a statewide race costs about $5 to $10 in campaign spending per vote (that's the going rate for many elections). A statewide race in California has about 10 million votes. If pro-gun people are the only ones funding the race for this "dark horse candidate", you'd have to spend around $100 M. That's a hundred million. I might be off by a factor of 2 or 4 here or there, but even a few dozen million far exceed the budget of what pro-gun people can come up with.

Another problem is campaign finance disclosure. Say you form a campaign committee for Mr. Dark Horse. Within a few weeks, you need to file a campaign finance disclosure form, which is made public. If you receive any donation of $1000 or more, you have to disclose it within 24 hours. What do you think would happen if the media finds out that the only people funding Mr. Dark Horse's campaign are gunnies? What do you think the SF Chron and LA Times will print if Mr. Dark Horse's campaign gets a donation of $1M from something like the California NRA member's council, or from the CRPAF, or from Mr. Eugene Hoffman, Mr. Brett Thomas and Mr. Brandon Combs? If the public finds out that a candidate is a pro-gun plant, funded by ultra-conservative people (like most of the people who write on this forum), their political careers is over.

Remember, the total budget of the CGF is in the low hundreds of thousands (and most of that money is needed for existing commitments).

Realistically, gunnies in this state have little political power through fundraising.

[.30-06]

Agreed on both counts. But I think we need to wait and see what he plans on running for. Then find a candidate to get behind and spread the word. Get the NRA and affiliates involved. This guys career needs to end.

[Tincon]

No "dark horse," just fund his closest competitor. Yee also may not be the best target for this, but the general idea is sound.

[taperxz]

You and what army?

Senator Yee will be running for Secretary of State. That's a statewide position. You can assume that a statewide race costs about $5 to $10 in campaign spending per vote (that's the going rate for many elections). A statewide race in California has about 10 million votes. If pro-gun people are the only ones funding the race for this "dark horse candidate", you'd have to spend around $100 M. That's a hundred million. I might be off by a factor of 2 or 4 here or there, but even a few dozen million far exceed the budget of what pro-gun people can come up with.

Another problem is campaign finance disclosure. Say you form a campaign committee for Mr. Dark Horse. Within a few weeks, you need to file a campaign finance disclosure form, which is made public. If you receive any donation of $1000 or more, you have to disclose it within 24 hours. What do you think would happen if the media finds out that the only people funding Mr. Dark Horse's campaign are gunnies? What do you think the SF Chron and LA Times will print if Mr. Dark Horse's campaign gets a donation of $1M from something like the California NRA member's council, or from the CRPAF, or from Mr. Eugene Hoffman, Mr. Brett Thomas and Mr. Brandon Combs? If the public finds out that a candidate is a pro-gun plant, funded by ultra-conservative people (like most of the people who write on this forum), their political careers is over.

Remember, the total budget of the CGF is in the low hundreds of thousands (and most of that money is needed for existing commitments).

Realistically, gunnies in this state have little political power through fundraising.

Yee is a dark horse for this position! He is NOT well liked in this state. Even by the democrats after all the crap he has produced.

For example, defeat in SCOTUS on video games, sun tan lotion and prostitutes!

[Capybara]

Hire some professional company for the good Senator, GoPro cameras, TMZ, jeez guys, this writes itself.

[Code7inOaktown]

You and what army?

Senator Yee will be running for Secretary of State. That's a statewide position. You can assume that a statewide race costs about $5 to $10 in campaign spending per vote (that's the going rate for many elections). A statewide race in California has about 10 million votes. If pro-gun people are the only ones funding the race for this "dark horse candidate", you'd have to spend around $100 M. That's a hundred million. I might be off by a factor of 2 or 4 here or there, but even a few dozen million far exceed the budget of what pro-gun people can come up with.

Another problem is campaign finance disclosure. Say you form a campaign committee for Mr. Dark Horse. Within a few weeks, you need to file a campaign finance disclosure form, which is made public. If you receive any donation of $1000 or more, you have to disclose it within 24 hours. What do you think would happen if the media finds out that the only people funding Mr. Dark Horse's campaign are gunnies? What do you think the SF Chron and LA Times will print if Mr. Dark Horse's campaign gets a donation of $1M from something like the California NRA member's council, or from the CRPAF, or from Mr. Eugene Hoffman, Mr. Brett Thomas and Mr. Brandon Combs? If the public finds out that a candidate is a pro-gun plant, funded by ultra-conservative people (like most of the people who write on this forum), their political careers is over.

Remember, the total budget of the CGF is in the low hundreds of thousands (and most of that money is needed for existing commitments).

Realistically, gunnies in this state have little political power through fundraising.

A state wide office is a problematic. I assumed this POS would run for a senate next. However, I will say I recently read an NYT story on two anti gun pols (Roberti) who lost because they had to burn so much fighting pro gun forces.


On the SOS many dems will be vying for the seat.

[Tincon]

I heard he wanted to run for SF mayor but that didn't work out for him.

[ja308]

This tactic was used to end the political career of David Roberti !
But as I recall the state govt took out one of our own too.

I forget the name, but fair political practice stuff demanded the names of every donor which he refused . Consequently I believe felony charges were filed by the state govt.

This all from memory, so may not be exactly accurate .

Thank you OP for the suggestion.

[chainsaw]

No "dark horse," just fund his closest competitor. Yee also may not be the best target for this, but the general idea is sound.

While I will disagree with you on the details (and will argue them until we are both blue in the face), I agree on the general idea. To a limited extent, California gun people would have the power to influence a few elections.

The elections would have to be in a limited territory (say one or two assembly districts), to reduce the number of voters. It needs to be an election where there is already a viable candidate, who is pretty darn close, and where swinging a few thousand votes is sufficient to change the outcome. Then there is the ideological problem. There are few areas in California where hard-core right-wing politicians are eligible, and those areas mostly already elect republican candidates. Having pro-gun people help campaign there is pointless.

So pro-gun people would have to hold their nose, and support a liberal politician. Looking at how people on this (and similar) forums act, I see little chance of massive support for such a candidate: if I proposed that the CGF membership turn out to support a pro-choice pro-LGBT non-christian-fundamentalist candidate, either because he's pro-gun, or just to punish a known enemy of gun rights, they would just get in a huff. Look at the typical threads here about pride marches, immigration rights, abortion, and such. Remember that even the NRA is more anti-gay than it is pro-gun (as demonstrated in the MacDonald drama).

And lastly, there is the reverse problem I alluded to above. If it turns out that a candidate is massively supported by known gun-rights groups and advocates, that will backfire spectacularly with the public.

Where massing voting power might be a really good idea is the position of County Sheriff, in all but the most liberal counties.

[chainsaw]

Yee is a dark horse for this position! He is NOT well liked in this state. Even by the democrats after all the crap he has produced.

For example, defeat in SCOTUS on video games, sun tan lotion and prostitutes!

Completely agree with you there. While gunnies have little chance of derailing Senator Yee's political career, he has been doing a pretty fine job of damaging that himself. On the other hand, the position of SOS is not actually very desirable (it's lot of work, unlike treasurer or controller, and has little visibility and tends to be a career ending move), so it's possible he will run de-facto unopposed on the democratic side.

As far as other democrats not liking Senator Yee goes: Remember how SB 249 was defeated last year? While pro-gun forces (in particular Wildhawker and the CGF) love to take credit for that, the reality is that Yee's bill was killed by Steinberg and friends. They may have used arguments cribbed from the writings of gunnies, but the real cause was a raw power play: someone of the seniority and cluelessness of Yee wasn't allowed to be where he wanted to be. It's like high school: if a freshman makes the mistake of trying to hang out in the area where seniors congregate, trouble will ensue. This has nothing to do with his legal defeats, and everything with "who plays nice in the sandbox and shares the toys".

Senator Yee is not popular with the rest of the Sacramento power brokers. I don't know whether he has a serious base in San Francisco, from which he can conquer a statewide position or not.

[ja308]

Chainsaw says,
So pro-gun people would have to hold their nose, and support a liberal politician. Looking at how people on this (and similar) forums act, I see little chance of massive support for such a candidate: if I proposed that the CGF membership turn out to support a pro-choice pro-LGBT non-christian-fundamentalist candidate, either because he's pro-gun, or just to punish a known enemy of gun rights, they would just get in a huff. Look at the typical threads here about pride marches, immigration rights, abortion, and such. Remember that even the NRA is more anti-gay than it is pro-gun (as demonstrated in the MacDonald drama).

My reply,
I could find a fin for such a candidate !

[DannyInSoCal]

Whenever I read these "we should do....." posts about how to defeat the anti-gun political hacks -

That great bathroom scene from the movie Fight Club runs through my head....